Governor Jim Doyle has become quite notorious for the ways he chooses to spend taxpayer dollars.
Instead of decreasing state spending in the 2009-2011 state budget, which would clearly serve to help balance it, Governor Doyle and the legislative Democrats chose to increase spending by 6.6%.
Moreover, in an attempt to close the gaping hole that is only worsened by increased spending, Doyle decided to use one-time federal stimulus dollars to fund ongoing expenses, for instance medical assistance, general school aids, and highways.
Now, Governor Doyle is pleading with President Barack Obama to receive the 8 billion in federal stimulus dollars allocated for a high-speed rail network. Doyle is not alone in his quest for more federal money. Governors from Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, and of course Wisconsin are seeking the cash in order to fund a Midwestern high-speed rail. Together, the eight governors have signed a memorandum which will coordinate their applications for funding.
Alarmingly, the price for the project is missing from the memorandum. However, projected costs for the Midwest rail are no less than $10 billion.
How does Doyle propose to fund the other $2 billion+? Why with other stimulus funds of course! At a news conference in Chicago, Doyle said up to 19 billion in federal dollars from other sources could be used to fund the cost gaps.
What happens when the federal money is needed to fund those “other sources” for which it was originally allocated? Must the nation dig itself further into debt by borrowing the money? The suggestion of taking funds for one (unnecessary and under researched) project and using it on another is reprehensible.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Presidential Earmark
Cap and trade is the practice of the government imposing emission limits on companies. When a company emits more than the federal government allows, it must purchase "carbon offsets" from companies that are below the government's allotted amount.
Cap and trade is a highly contested issue, and the arguments for and against it fall pretty much exclusively along party lines.
The argument made most frequently by Republicans are as follows. Inarguably, cap and trade forces the companies that have to pay for carbon offsets on to us. Second, China and India, the other global emissions leaders, refuse to set limits on their emissions. Consequently, the United States becomes a country that penalizes its own companies, and then forces the aforementioned companies to relocate to other limit-free nations. Additionally, if other emission leaders will not follow America's example and cap their emissions, America's efforts are inconsequential.
This, however, is not the truly crooked aspect of cap and trade.
Goldman Sachs, an investment banking and securities firm, made $2 billion last year and paid no federal income taxes. (In case you've forgotten, the United States began to experience a bit of a recession last year.) Isn't this a bit hypocritical considering senators, like self-described democratic socialist Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), see no problem taxing the wealthiest 1% of Americans an amount he will not disclose?
The reason Goldman Sachs was spared of what would be hugely disproportionate taxes, if Bernie Sanders got his wish, is it owns a 10% share in the exchange where the cap and trade deals will be made. On each deal, a commission will be paid to the investors involved in the exchange. So, Goldman Sachs pays no taxes but stands to make millions more than they already do.
Furthermore, Goldman Sachs' employees gave Obama's campaign close to $1 million. Sounds a lot like a Presidential earmark.
Cap and trade is a highly contested issue, and the arguments for and against it fall pretty much exclusively along party lines.
The argument made most frequently by Republicans are as follows. Inarguably, cap and trade forces the companies that have to pay for carbon offsets on to us. Second, China and India, the other global emissions leaders, refuse to set limits on their emissions. Consequently, the United States becomes a country that penalizes its own companies, and then forces the aforementioned companies to relocate to other limit-free nations. Additionally, if other emission leaders will not follow America's example and cap their emissions, America's efforts are inconsequential.
This, however, is not the truly crooked aspect of cap and trade.
Goldman Sachs, an investment banking and securities firm, made $2 billion last year and paid no federal income taxes. (In case you've forgotten, the United States began to experience a bit of a recession last year.) Isn't this a bit hypocritical considering senators, like self-described democratic socialist Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), see no problem taxing the wealthiest 1% of Americans an amount he will not disclose?
The reason Goldman Sachs was spared of what would be hugely disproportionate taxes, if Bernie Sanders got his wish, is it owns a 10% share in the exchange where the cap and trade deals will be made. On each deal, a commission will be paid to the investors involved in the exchange. So, Goldman Sachs pays no taxes but stands to make millions more than they already do.
Furthermore, Goldman Sachs' employees gave Obama's campaign close to $1 million. Sounds a lot like a Presidential earmark.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Obama's Health Care Promise a Flat Out Lie
President Barack Obama has promised and reassured and promised again that Americans with private insurance coverage will be able to keep their current coverage under his new health care plan. He has even held a press conference during which he vehemently denied the government plan would force out the private sector. The reason Obama has been forced to repeatedly assure the nation of this promise is that Republicans are concerned government run health care is inextricably linked to socialism.
Perhaps the President intends to deceive the nation (and Congress) in order to get the bill passed before the Legislature's recess, or more likely, perhaps Obama has not read the 1,018 page omnibus bill. Either way, the point remains the same: America will soon have exclusively government run health care if the bill passes.
On page 16 of the truly enormous bill, it reads: "Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day." In effect, what this means is that after the bill becomes law, no new policies will be allowed to be written by private insurers. Moreover, if an individual were to drop their private insurance for whatever reason and attempt to pick up a different private carrier they would be unable to do so.
This will, quite clearly, force all private insurance companies into nonexistence. Maybe that is why only 40% of Americans are happy with the direction the United States is heading.
Click here to read about Obama's two other health care lies he continues to propagate.
Perhaps the President intends to deceive the nation (and Congress) in order to get the bill passed before the Legislature's recess, or more likely, perhaps Obama has not read the 1,018 page omnibus bill. Either way, the point remains the same: America will soon have exclusively government run health care if the bill passes.
On page 16 of the truly enormous bill, it reads: "Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day." In effect, what this means is that after the bill becomes law, no new policies will be allowed to be written by private insurers. Moreover, if an individual were to drop their private insurance for whatever reason and attempt to pick up a different private carrier they would be unable to do so.
This will, quite clearly, force all private insurance companies into nonexistence. Maybe that is why only 40% of Americans are happy with the direction the United States is heading.
Click here to read about Obama's two other health care lies he continues to propagate.
Wisconsin Supreme Court Makes Mistake
The Wisconsin State Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that religious teachers are not protected by Wisconsin discrimination laws. The 4-3 majority believes employment discrimination laws only apply to employees whose positions are not linked to a religious organization's mission. Conversely, the dissent believes the Supreme Court's decision will enable religious schools to discriminate against their employees.
The ruling was made after Wendy Ostlund, a first grade teacher at a Catholic school, was terminated. Ostlund was suing under the state's Fair Employment Act; however, the Court ruled she was unable to use said law because her job consists of teaching religious curriculum and leading classes in prayer. Ostlund believes she was fired due to her age (53), for she was replaced by a 35 year old teacher.
In the past, only religious leaders, for instance ministers, were exempt from the Fair Employment Act.
This decision is clearly a mistake on behalf of the majority. As a result of this ruling, all religious school teachers will be exempt from the Fair Employment Act and many will likely face undeserved termination. Any religious school teacher ultimately leads his or her students in some sort of religious activity. By using this factor as the determinant in their ruling, discrimination can easily occur.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court attempted to enforce the necessary American principle of separation of church and state. However, this case is not a matter of religiousity. It is a matter of equal treatment under the law, and the Court's decision will inevitably prevent equal treatment.
To read the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision:
click here
The ruling was made after Wendy Ostlund, a first grade teacher at a Catholic school, was terminated. Ostlund was suing under the state's Fair Employment Act; however, the Court ruled she was unable to use said law because her job consists of teaching religious curriculum and leading classes in prayer. Ostlund believes she was fired due to her age (53), for she was replaced by a 35 year old teacher.
In the past, only religious leaders, for instance ministers, were exempt from the Fair Employment Act.
This decision is clearly a mistake on behalf of the majority. As a result of this ruling, all religious school teachers will be exempt from the Fair Employment Act and many will likely face undeserved termination. Any religious school teacher ultimately leads his or her students in some sort of religious activity. By using this factor as the determinant in their ruling, discrimination can easily occur.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court attempted to enforce the necessary American principle of separation of church and state. However, this case is not a matter of religiousity. It is a matter of equal treatment under the law, and the Court's decision will inevitably prevent equal treatment.
To read the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision:
click here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)